Management

Conservation as it is known today arose from the big game hunters’ interest in preserving places to go hunting in which there would be abundant wildlife and minimal human interference with the landscape, or habitat destruction if you like.

The historical ideology was both practical and profitable while ensuring each animal had a price tag attached to their head, whether as a trophy, a trophy-in-training or mother of the trophy-to-be. This early form of conservation incorporated conservation values still held today, such as reducing as much as possible, or even completely eradicating, human presence in designated “wilderness areas” while also fulfilling an important community-oriented role in terms of employment, meat provision and problem animal control. It was commonly known that wildlife, while majestic and treasured, could be problematic to live with in a rural setting especially if one had crops that game would eat or livestock that lions would kill.

Conservation as it is known today is much more about the animal welfare than it is about the people who have to live with the wildlife. There are several examples in historical and modern society demonstrating how, without a tangible monetary or in-kind value, resources are exploited to damn near extinction or complete ruin. Currently, the West and donors expect rural people who live on less than “a-dollar-a-day” to embrace the crop-raiding, livestock-chowing wildlife with little to no compensation for the destruction. It’s no wonder one form of conservation is proving very difficult to protect, in Africa at the very least.

The reason for this is that the West, or those well-meaning donors, can AFFORD to place a form of monetary value on the aesthetical pleasure of viewing wildlife without eating it. The people who do the poaching and habitat destruction simply cannot afford to think about much else than where the next meal is coming from. One thing my family jokes about when dealing with Western ways of life or ideals is this: “Can I eat it? If I cannot eat it then you cannot expect me to be ok with it.” This can be about money, which can be used to purchase things to eat, or it can be about animals, which will readily be eaten by the highest-ranking government official straight down to the poor subsistence farmer whose child you will see in National Geographic with flies on its face.

If it’s destructive to your fields and you can eat it then why wouldn’t you shoot/snare it? It’s a valid point that many miss in the effort to safeguard nature and the “rights” various people have assigned to animals not their own.

I’m not knocking conservation strategies, just trying to point out that not one model is good enough for such a large planet with such diverse wildlife problems amidst hugely diverse cultural differences.

Trophy hunting isn’t something everyone can stomach – most clients come out to shoot shit and take the head home to nail on their wall of “achievement”. Who am I to judge? This is the singular argument that most “antis” have against hunting: it’s all about feeding the ego of the client. Feeding the ego and not the village. Feeding the ego and not anti-poaching efforts.

Well, since I joined the hunting social group 10 months ago I have learnt a lot, by listening, asking questions, playing devil’s advocate, reading and, in my own way, contributing what I can from an ecologist’s perspective to discussions. The following is based on my experiences and communication with various Professional Hunters (PHs) in Zambia and the staff and communities with which they work. I have read the Wildlife Act No. 14 of 2015 several times and I would like to think I understand the cultural norms, expectations and requirements of rural Zambians living in, or close to, wildlife areas.

HUNTERS ARE HUMANS. They have feelings, they are regular people with regular jobs for the most part, some are self-made millionaires others have been saving their entire lives to fulfil a dream of hunting in Africa. They’re pretty nice, for the most part, to talk to and will put up with long hard, hot days, very simple accommodations and 4am starts ending at 8pm.

MEAT DISTRIBUTION TO COMMUNITIES IS NOT A RARE OCCURRENCE. Most, if not all hunters/hunting operators distribute meat from the trophy animals to the nearby communities. This is rarely in the form of distributions to single families but usually to schools, clinics or traditional ceremonies; or the chief. Given that the hunting season in Zambia is in the dry season when the least amount of food is available/accessible to rural communities, this provides an important source of protein for a generally under-nourished population.

MEAT DISTRIBUTION IS A REQUIREMENT OF HAVING A GAME MANAGEMENT AREA (GMA) CONCESSION.

NOTE: I say meat distribution NOT donation. This is because I believe, even though it is not legally true, that the communities own the wildlife through not poaching excessively. Donations are incredibly harmful over prolonged periods of time, making communities accustomed to ‘freebies’. This is different.

STAFF ARE EMPLOYED FROM THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES. The vast majority of staff employed by hunters/hunting operators are sourced from the nearby communities. This includes chefs, waiters, mechanics, skinners, drivers, trackers, anti-poaching scouts, etc. Without the hunting operators these areas would have far fewer employment opportunities, granted it doesn’t create millions of jobs, but it creates enough to bring some families out of extreme poverty. Better some than none, right?

HUNTERS AND HUNTING OPERATORS ARE CONSERVATIONISTS – THE ORIGINAL CONSERVATIONISTS. Hunters cannot maintain a business if their concession is devoid of wildlife, and not just wildlife but trophy quality wildlife (which happen to be the oldest individuals). In order to maintain the resource they utilize they must protect it and ensure the populations are, at the very least, stable if not growing. From a business point of view, this is easy to understand.

HUNTERS PAY LARGE SUMS OF MONEY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE. In order to hunt an animal in Zambia one must purchase a GMA permit, allowing the client to hunt in a designated hunting area, as well as purchase a license for each animal the client wants to hunt. This money goes to DNPW. Once there, it is NOT the responsibility of the hunter/hunting operator to ensure it is used for the right purpose; this is up to DNPW.

If a hunter or hunting operator were to challenge what the license and permit money is used for, it is highly likely that they would lose their concession in the next tender or, if operating on private land, would have a significantly reduced quota. This inevitably results in worse conservation overall.

A GMA permit is $150 per person. A buffalo license is $1,600. A lion license is $5,000 and an elephant is $10,000. That’s a lot of money.

HABITAT DESTRUCTION/FRAGMENTATION/DEGRADATION IS CITED AS ONE OF THE BIGGEST THREATS TO WILDLIFE IN THE WORLD. Hunting areas are generally not as picturesque as photographic safari areas and they are almost always far less accessible. But hunting clients seek the experience once they are there and this is not a problem for them. This means that if hunting stopped in Zambia and the GMA’s were put up for tender for photographic safaris, we would lose over 50% of our national Wildlife Estate to human encroachment and poaching. Hunting currently provides much needed habitat for the following species, but is definitely not limited to just these:

Lion

Leopard

Wild dog

Elephant

Southern ground hornbill

Thornicroft giraffe

Black lechwe

Red lechwe

Kafue lechwe

Cookson’s wildebeest

HUNTERS ARE MORE INTUNE WITH NATURE AND THE ANIMALS THEY HUNT THAN YOUR TYPICAL CONSERVATION NGO PERSONNEL. Hunters spend more time in the bush watching animals and reading their behaviour than the typical NGO conservationist, so naturally they understand and know more about the bush and the animals. They also have a more genuine interest in conserving their areas and making it benefit the local people – this is the sustainable way to go.

IF HUNTING AREAS COULD MAKE THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY, OR MORE, FROM NON-HUNTING SAFARIS, VERY FEW HUNTERS WOULD CONTINUE HUNTING. FACT.

As I mentioned in a previous post, fire is rarely cited as a significant threat to wildlife. Of course, it is acknowledged as a threat to habitat…which means it is a threat to wildlife.

I’ve just made a couple of simple maps here using NASA MODIS data and QGIS mapping software to illustrate just how important fire is in conservation. One is of Zambia and the other shows Africa south of the northern DRC border.

Burned area extent in Zambia from January – July 2017; green areas indicate National Parks. Note the difference between Kafue National Park (the big one on the left) and South Luangwa National Park (the big one on the right); they have different conservation programmes. Which do you think is more successful, looking at this data? Data: NASA MODIS, software: QGIS

Burned area extent in Africa south of the northern DRC border between January and July 2017. While fire doesn’t seem like a huge conservation issue in several countries (e.g. Namibia, Botswana and Kenya; all are pretty arid, desert-like anyway), it is most definitely a challenge in South Africa, Angola, Mozambique, Zambia, Tanzania and DRC. It is said that Zambia has some of the most important big carnivore populations, given this illustration it would be safe to say fire management is right up there with poaching as a threat to wildlife conservation. Data: NASA MODIS, software: QGIS

Most people won’t have realised this, or even experienced it, but it is incredibly difficult to live in the bush conserving shit while simultaneously having a healthy relationship. This is mostly because we work in remote areas with limited communications or because we simply cannot find someone willing to live with us in those remote areas, enjoying the same things we do.

Of course, you may have heard of ‘khaki fever’ which keeps some of us going. This is, essentially, the newcomers (usually tourists) loving the rugged, toughness of our exterior and us taking advantage of that attention (because, let’s be honest, it’s been a long while since we’ve seen some decent tail besides the bushbuck running away from the car earlier). But khaki fever doesn’t hold you when you have nightmares and it doesn’t help you with your day-to-day struggles in the office; it doesn’t love you. It loves who you appear to be. For a night, maybe two if you’re lucky, more if you’re a leprechaun.

So, when you find someone who is willing to either put up with the lack of communication our life affords or someone who fits into that life, you generally hold on to them with an iron fist and try your to never let go or let feel like they should let go. Some, of course, refuse to change and this doesn’t end too well (google anything about people not listening to understand or how relationships interfere with independence and you will understand what I mean, roughly).

This means that, for the majority of us, we continue with our work, our crucial, vital work, while sacrificing the one essential element to the human life: to love and be loved in return (yes, that was a Moulin Rouge reference and what a beautiful film/song it is indeed (some of us are a tad educated in that department, others live under a larger rock than Fred Flintstone)).

Some of us are lucky enough to find someone who fits into our life scheme, plan, or lack thereof. We are very few and this comes with its own challenges because, more often than not, we work together or for each other or some other scenario involving work colleagues, office hierarchy, etc. Working with/for the one you love is incredibly difficult (take it from me, I deal with it on a daily basis). It is even worse when you are expected to change to fit their model and they expect not to be expected to compromise to be parallel to your model or even to make you feel comfortable in just your professional role never mind the after-hours business (again, take it from me).

So, in essence, what I’m trying to say is: people working in conservation sacrifice a hell of a lot more than you might actually think we do. We sacrifice hot water most of the time. And running water a lot of the time. And ‘normal’ social lives. And a lot more. We sacrifice love. Being loved. We sacrifice a fuck tonne because, somehow, we love what we do (bordering on masochism in some cases. No, not 50 Shades of Grey stuff, more like no children ever but you really want them kind of stuff). I suppose I’m trying to say please give us a bit more credit than we currently get? We give up a lot, willingly and mostly without argument (because we believe wholeheartedly in our fight) while most ‘conservationists’ sit behind computers as ‘keyboard warriors’ (see the article I wrote on these folks here) and rarely give up more than $10 a year for conservation.

We’re trying our very best.

Sincerely,

Almost everyone that chose to work/live/both in the bush in Africa.

xoxox

P.S. We don’t regret it, but we’d appreciate some sort of recognition for it.

I submitted an article to Africa Geographic earlier this year and received a fantastically positive response. The one problem, however, was that the content wasn’t positive enough about how conservation actually works so I was asked to edit it a bit – add some sunshine and glitter – and resubmit. I have yet to do so because, quite frankly, I disagree with focusing solely on the success stories or on the positive side of absolutely everything.

Here is an article on Biodiversity Science by the founder of Animus Conservation stating why he thinks we should focus on the success stories, raising some relevant points. I agree that, in an effort to highlight the importance of conservation and show it’s not a total waste of money as well as inspire the younger generation to be more environmentally conscious, it is very important to talk about and share stories of success.

But how do you learn not to do something if no one has made that mistake before?

That is why I think it is crucial to put equal emphasis on both the failures and successes in conservation. Not only do we learn from our own mistakes but sharing the word about what didn’t work will help let others in a similar situation know they’re not alone (which is quite nice when you think you’ve just gone and wasted a bunch of donor funding) as well as inform those about to embark on a similar project. Sharing of failures could also elicit advice from people/projects who have done something similar and have had success.

A big problem is that many conservation organisations are terrified of losing funding if they fail to implement what they said they would (because the donors are actually the ones in charge). This affects the PR and marketing of the conservation organisations who try to always share positive stories (unless something or someone dies, or if a terrible story will raise funding). The people furthest removed from actual conservation are the ones that are determining what information we share within our own community; not all conservationists know each other so media is an important information-gathering tool.

Why are we trying to portray a perfect picture when all conservationists know that things rarely go to plan or work first time? Why does the media get to decide what story is more important than another?

It is dynamic field and none of us can preempt what will be the best strategy except Trial and Error. What if we had access to sufficient Trial and Error stories so that we could reduce the amount of error we have to go through? Now that sounds like sensible conservation to me.

Here are some links for further, interesting reads around this subject:

Despite the public image(s) that conservation NGO’s like to perpetuate and develop, inter-organisational cooperation between such NGO’s is rather strained. More often there will be cooperation, not because the NGO’s agree with, or have professional respect for, one another but because one needs something from the other. It is imperative that readers note that conservation is a team effort and without such cooperation, however strained or difficult, it would be impossible to conserve and research wild places and animals.

I recently heard a rather disturbing story that spotlights the strain and competition between conservation NGO’s and how one person’s actions can have an impact on conservation in a whole COUNTRY – Zambia.

Some of you may know the people involved and the whole story, I ask that you do not mention any names in the comments and in posts if you share this on social media, as that would not help the current situation. Let’s keep it civil and keep it as a lesson we can all learn from. In addition, if the details are incorrect or something has been left out that is important to the story, please comment with the suggested amendment(s); remember not to use real names of people, places or organisations.

The story is as follows:

A conservation NGO in Zambia had a project managed by a very well respected person in the conservation sector, nationally, regionally and internationally, and has good donor backing. In this narrative, this person will be referred to as “Santa”. Santa decided, for whatever reason(s), to separate from the overarching NGO and take their project “private”. This did not sit well with the boss of the NGO, naturally. The CEO will be referred to as “Tinky winky” in this narrative. Tinky winky then proceeded to fire not only Santa but a large component of Santa’s staff from the parent NGO. In and of itself this was big news in the country and many people were shocked and appalled by Tinky winky’s behaviour. Grumpy then decided to write emails to a large number of international donors in the UK and USA, many of which support more than one project in Zambia; I do not know what these emails said but essentially it was to “burn” Santa and remove any future support for them. This email reached quite a lot of people in other conservation NGO’s in the county as well, many of whom know and respect Santa and knew their side of the story. To add insult to injury, employees within the NGO told several outsiders (myself included) that Tinky winky took Santa to court over equipment, vehicles, etc. that had been purchased with funding granted to the project while under the parent organisation.

I was then put straight by Santa who said no such court case happened – merely a legal settlement was put forward and agreed upon by both parties. Or, at least, agreed by one party and accepted by the other because no other choice existed.

So, what can we learn from this? One person – one very egotistical, manipulative person – damaged the reputation of ALL conservation NGO’s in Zambia, potentially reducing the likelihood of repeat funding. Why? Because rejection was too much to handle for them; or failure. What form of reprimand/discipline/backlash did that egotistical, manipulative person get? Fuck all. Why did they get fuck all? Because “it’s good to be the boss”, and perhaps baby animals and the ridiculously high rates of internal conflict of interest at the NGO.

When working in remote areas with limited funding and expertise it is always wise to keep any potential help as close as possible, and making sure you maintain decorum in all situations. I would not be surprised if, in this particular case, revenge was served cold and frostbite was suffered by more than just one man.

Cultural sensitivity is a big thing when working in conservation – knowing when to cover your shoulders, who to speak to first, how to behave in various situations, what to expect from certain people, knowing when you’ve just been insulted – however it doesn’t seem to be at the forefront of some NGO’s who allegedly have the utmost respect for local culture and identity.

You will notice that a lot of conservation NGO’s employ foreign, generally white, staff to fill the higher ranks. They also tend to prefer foreign whites over local, ‘home grown’ whites, and have no qualms about literally interpreting “keep it in the family” with regard to employment.

This leads to problems. Lack of local support. Lack of respect from staff. Low work motivation. Increased workplace politics. Problems with government. Reduced likelihood of work permit issuance. Legal ramifications.

Take this amusing example:

A conservation project manager (would it excuse them if I said they were Dutch?), apparently approached a very senior police officer conducting speed trapping in a National Park in Zambia. Bwana Senior Police Officer happened to be eating a hunk cheese like an apple; Dutchie observed this and allegedly blurted out:

“Why are you eating cheese like a monkey?”

Naturally, being African and high ranking, the insult was taken to heart and I believe the District Commissioner was called about the monkey-business, along with others of similar persuasion/position. Anyway, this person (and their significant other who also happens to work for the same project) have had their contracts cut short due to “lack of funding”, which is what this particular organisation blames for just about everything, probably would try to blame Trump’s presidency on “lack of funding” if they weren’t pro-Trump. I digress.

I don’t have any evidence, or gossip, that suggests that the two incidents are connected but it seems a bit too odd to be a coincidence.

This person had, until taking this job, been to Zambia once before (for the job interview) and South Africa once (I think, maybe somewhere else too) and no experience in conservation whatsoever; they did however have a Dutch police force background. Had they gained some experience in Africa to see that, sure we have a sense of humour but never say anything that could be taken the wrong way to someone senior to you, this would not have happened. Had they spent some time at lower levels of management to become accustomed to the people and the way things are done here, this would not have happened. Had a Zambian been employed for this job, or even 2 Zambians together, this would not have happened. Had someone from another African nation been hired, this would not have happened. But, as is increasingly obvious, this particular organisation has not had a chance to accept this yet and is once again a bit of a laughing stock within the conservation community because of the incredulity of this situation (and previous ones of course).

Another, slightly less important but epidemic, culturally ignorant mistake of conservation folk is disregard for appropriate attire. The “booty short” in rural Africa is anything above the knee; the revealing top is uncovered shoulders. It’s annoying but necessary to understand.

Without some grounding in how to deal with indigenous peoples, some experience of how things really work in Africa and various amounts of patience, tolerance and resilience, one will likely not make it very far in conservation in Africa. This certainly does not mean the people who do make it are polite, genuine, gentile, etc. (quite a lot are prejudice towards almost everything), it just means that we know what the system expects of us – and what we can expect from the system.

Of course, there are the bad-apple-Africans in the mix too! Some will be “When-We’s” wishing for the days of white dominance and lawlessness to return, others will be the offspring of such people; you may be subjected to arrogant Rhodesians (because they still call themselves that) or those who are completely useless city-slickers from the likes of Jozi and CT.

Perhaps you will find yourself meeting a gentleman that manages a very nice conservation base camp, who seems to be respected not only by the staff he manages but also by colleagues and local community members. Then you might hear stories about tempers being lost, something about fists or pushing (the details were sketchy), maybe something about the Chief demanding he removed from the chiefdom because he will not tolerate that kind of behaviour. When you subsequently learn that this potential situation happened, not only months ago, but more than once, you wonder why such a person has not been sacked. Naturally, this resulted in a lot of lost respect and tolerance for the project by the local communities.

If in doubt though, refrain from insinuating anyone is stupid or unintelligent, do not ever compare anyone to an ape – great or otherwise – unless you too wish to solicit an audience with your local District Commissioner (conveniently right before the money runs out), and do try your best not to play at fisticuffs with your colleagues/staff.

Disclaimer: I have used words such as “apparently”, “might”, “perhaps” and “allegedly”, and phrases such as “I believe”, “potential situation” and “I don’t have any evidence to suggest…”; I do not mention names of people, places or organisations involved in this story. This means accusing me of defamation is not a possibility: you’d have to prove this is all false and being upset would only prove it’s all true.

Community projects in rural Africa almost always have to receive the blessing of traditional leaders – the local chief or chieftainess – before anything can really be done. This blessing often, however, involves hefty back-handers in order to secure such a deal, otherwise the chief vetoes your whole plan. Chiefs were given more authority under colonial rule, especially in British colonies, than they had enjoyed before and were essentially an extension of the governing systems in towns and cities.

If you don’t have a good relationship with your local chief you might have land disputes, court cases, even death threats. If you do have a good relationship with your chief, chances are you dread seeing them or hearing from them because they always ask for something, more money, a new car, new TV, battery for tractor, etc.

So why is this such a big deal for conservation? Well, in Zambia for example, areas outside of designated towns and cities are part of various chiefdoms – including National Parks, Private Game Reserves, National Forest Reserves, Game Management Areas, etc. You will probably end up paying your chief a monthly stipend, helping to build their house and other odd jobs – taking money away from being put to use in rural health centres, schools, sinking boreholes for clean drinking water, helping agriculture, etc. You will also know that the land rent that is supposed to go to the community, distributed from the chief’s personal bank account no less, never gets distributed further than the outside of his compound gate except if being transferred to an offshore account.

Instead of spending this valuable money, time and other resources on your conservation effort, you are knowingly giving it to a corrupt person who does nothing for their community because there honestly isn’t anything else you can do.

If you start a community trust and make sure there are over 6 people that have to unanimously decide on what money is spent on, the chief will have to part of it and will either buy everyone’s votes or veto absolutely anything and everything that doesn’t include them getting at least 10% commission for being “the ruler of this area, it is traditional after all for me to be paid for my position as chief”.

If community trusts were set up and the local chief received, on top of their government stipend, 5% of the trust earnings, and the balance was spent on sponsoring gifted children to further their education, to build a maternity ward at a Rural Health Centre, and refurbish the broken roof of a class room, the communities would benefit a lot more than they are currently. The chiefs, however, will never let this happen and will forever seek to skim benefits from the communities as payment for their chiefly services.

Until chiefs – or equivalent traditional leaders – are stripped of their power and sense of entitlement, conservation is not worth the hassle or money they demand.

Some conservation initiatives focus on one species – southern white rhino, snow leopard, platapus, Iberian lynx, polar bear, condors, gorilla – or specific areas – Great Barrier Reef, fynbos region, the Mara. This is usually justified as, when referring to a specific area, marketing conservation of a “special” area encompasses every living thing and natural process inside that area. When referring to a specific species, they are used as ‘poster’ animals to bring in funding and resources to further conservation of that species, which sometimes helps to conserve other living things that share their habitat.

The problem with this prejudice in conservation is that it a) drags down areas or species that don’t exhibit charismatic traits or have beautiful scenery, and b) makes it incredibly difficult if you’re trying to conserve a place that excludes ‘special’ habitat or a species that is less charismatic than most (e.g. rodents, insects, fish, grass).

Let’s digress a wee bit and talk about tsetse flies. Did you know a ridiculous amount of land in Africa has been set aside for wildlife because of the presence of tsetse flies and the livestock diseases they carry? The second largest national park in Africa – Kafue National Park in Zambia – is one such example. Many commercial hunting areas provide vital habitat for scores of wildlife species because of tsetse files as well. So really, they deserve a big fat gold medal for “most insignificant thing to get Africa to conserve stuff” but they don’t, because they’re not sexy. In fact, photographic tour operators prefer to kill them because a) some are under the impression that any tsetse flies reduce wildlife productivity and b) “the guests hate them, it’s not good for business”.

Back to “Big 5” donors – in order to eek a bit of funding for an “insignificant” species or threat, conservationists end up having a bunch of, or designing, “high profile” projects in the hope that some of the funding could maybe be used for something more important than what some person in a 22nd-floor office in New York thinks justifies a donation of $5 a year.

Which would you be more likely to fund?:

elephant population research in Kruger

fire management in the DRC

collaring carnivores in Tsavo

frog distribution expedition in Mozambique

an elephant orphanage

fish surveys of the Zambezi watershed rivers

Be aware that the first, third and fifth are those that will open you up to critique considering Kruger and Tsavo are well researched and baby animals never run out of money, whereas Mozambique, the Zambezi watershed and DRC are relatively less well documented.

Another digression – PLANTS! No one ever thinks the grass needs love or the orchids need protecting from chikanda harvesting (usually Disa genus geophytes). People seem to think plants will always take care of themselves regardless of what they’re subjected to (which is correct to a certain extent) and that animals need to be the centre of attention right now. My only response to the matter is: “yes, let’s do that, let’s focus solely on the animals and, if and when there isn’t any food left I guess human babies will just have to do.”

One of the most commonly cited, or highest-ranked, threats to conservation in Africa is, and has been, poaching – the illegal harvesting of natural resources, usually animal-derived. This includes bushmeat, bones, hides, honey and fish, among other things. The next threat is usually human encroachment or habitat loss – which generally refers to the conversion of “pristine” wilderness areas to agricultural lands. You won’t, however, see many citing fire as a major threat to conservation efforts, which is odd because it happens to the biggest environmental catalyst currently acting in Africa. That is, of course, if you exclude all forms of human activity extending as far as carbon emissions and water extraction.

Fire is most commonly referred to as a “management tool” employed by authorities or managers to shape the landscape to their specific goals or needs. However, goals and needs are highly subjective, incredibly reliant on climate variables and often not homogenous across landscapes that are a mosaic of different land ownership rights.

Why do I argue that fire is equally as threatening to conservation as poaching or human encroachment? It’s simple: poaching targets a certain section of biodiversity (animals) and does not necessarily harm the habitat to such an extent as to not function sufficiently to carry out the ecosystem services so desperately needed in today’s world. Habitat encroachment, while definitely a very important factor, can only move as fast as the humans can and certain habitats are not suitable for human settlement. Fire is also a proxy for human presence and disturbance.

Fire never discriminates, it moves faster than humans and it destroys everything from soil bacteria to birds to denning mammals to trees and creepy crawlies. You will not find another threat to conservation that is as broad spectrum as fire. It can be likened to a broad spectrum anti-biotic: everything is targeted whether good, bad or neutral.

Using fire inappropriately is possibly one of the biggest problems Africa faces in terms of rangeland management, either too much or too little and boom! You’ve sufficiently skewed your ecosystem into habitat fragmentation and landscape-level change, not to mention reducing overall biodiversity by homogenising disturbance events.

The Southern African sub-region faces a huge problem of bush encroachment cause by the alteration of natural fire regimes, where certain tree or shrub species in a region are better adapted to cope with frequent fire events and eventually the treeline encroaches on grasslands and open plains. This is perfectly illustrated by the Acacia karroo invasion of the Smaaldeel grasslands in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Here, livestock farmers removed fire from the landscape because they thought it was a destructive influence. Aerial photographs and research by local universities has shown that they couldn’t have been more wrong. Many private game reserves in Limpopo Province also struggle with bush encroachment – a remnant of the commercial agricultural history of the land – but here Terminalia sericea is the usual suspect. Parts of Zambian protected areas exhibit classic bush encroachment in plains where, 30 years ago only the odd tree was seen on an anthill, now the horizon is littered with deformed, stunted Piliostigma, Combretum and Acacia trees that have taken over edaphic grasslands whose fire regime has been interfered with since the mid-1900’s. Authorities and tour operators like to blame the tree deformities on elephant damage but we all know Zambia does not have enough elephants for that to be true. Treelines advance, maintaining natural species composition, in areas where fire is completely excluded, producing the same effect as typical bush encroachment and reducing open grassy areas.

Conversely, receding treelines of woodlands and forests can be attributed to frequent fires that damage trees not well adapted to fire. This is why many Western settlers adopted no-burn policies, which have been absorbed by the independent African governments of today.

The reason fire is rarely managed properly stretches back to the good old settler/colonial times when the Western immigrants were of the opinion that indigenous use of fire was a destructive practice. While this may be true concerning preservation of ancient trees and forests, the anthropogenic use of fire led to the opening of Africa’s woodlands and forests to create the great savannahs. Without that progression, the great radiation of ungulates would not have been possible and Africa as we know it today would not exist.

If conservation is to indeed preserve biodiversity and habitats for all creatures great and small, then it needs to start understanding the role fire plays in African ecology. Reducing open grassy habitat will exclude wildlife species that select open areas, such as typical plains game, and reduce habitat availability for edge species; reducing woodland and forested habitat does the same for those species preferring cover. Balance is what is needed, and more monitoring, recording and publishing of fire and its landscaping abilities in relation to conservation goals and objectives.

In order to achieve such balance, however, an enormous shift in perceptions and understanding of fire is required by rangeland managers, academics, the agricultural sector, conservation NGO’s, governmental departments and the pyromaniac population of Africa. Given the blatant distrust between rangeland managers (often anti-academic because they get treated like ignorant school children regularly), academics (who are often the perpetrators of such discrimination and think they know best but rarely agree between themselves), conservation NGO’s (who tend to base their understanding of nature on memoirs by early Western settlers in the 1800’s and 1900’s) and the indigenous peoples (who are almost always treated as criminals and the source of destruction when it comes to conservation), this balance will likely not be reached any time soon.

In order to find this balance – to douse the literal and metaphoric flames engulfing conservation in Africa – we all have to get along and find a middle ground which is conservation of natural African landscapes. Not preservation of individual species or the idyllic “Myth of Wild Africa”.